Skip to main content

About your Search

English 42
Search Results 0 to 41 of about 42 (some duplicates have been removed)
and governmental conduct code section 1.1 16 subsection a2 for reporting and receiving a loan to his candidate committee in excess of $120,000. two, one violation of san francisco campaign and governmental conduct code section 1.1 16, subsection c, for repaying aloan amount in excess of $120,000. 3 one violation of california government code section 81 104, subdivision a has incorporated into local law by san francisco campaign and governmental conduct code section 1.1 106 for not accurately reporting either the correct amount loan or the date that the loan was deposited into the committee's bank ak. four, one violation of san francisco campaign and governmental conduct code for not providingdoms that were required to keep within ten business days after a request by ethics commission staff. five, 16 violations of california code section 1 4104 as incorporated into local law by san francisco campaign and governmental conduct code section 1.1 06 for faying to maintain detailed records that document the days on which his committee made 15 expenditures, the amounts of the expenditures, the names a
then proceeded to deal with each subsection of section 64 of the act, and i'm sure many of you yourselves may now have learned a lot about section 60 and section 64 of our criminal procedure act. mr. pistorius added he does not know the witnesses nor does he interfere with any of the witnesses or contact any of the witnesses listed by the state. he bears no grudges, has no previous convictions or outstanding cases and is not disposed to violence. he does not constitute a flight risk, and he's willing to hand in all travel documents and not apply for another as part of bail conditions. he will not attempt to flee the scene. he will be able to raise an appropriate amount of bail. as far as the evidentiary material goes he does not know what it consists of but believes it is in the possession of the south african police and he does not have access to it. he further undertakes not to interfere with the investigation and that his release will not disturb the public order or undermine the function of the criminal justice system. are you okay? want a drink? he believes that the interests of justice, con
and safety requirements including requirements in regard to reasonable attire. that is subsection 6. or b-6. and subsection c continues, "that nothing about the state regulatory section shall preclude a local ordinance from authorizing suspension, revocation or other restriction of a license or performance for violation of this chapter or of the local ordinance that occurred at the business premise." i don't think it's the case that ceo can evade the pen penalties that happened in july before they came within the ambit of the state statute. even if you set aside the facts and you sets aside the law, that argument is curious, because it would be the only law i'm aware of which you can say i can commit a wrong, but i can't be penalized because six months later i moved out of your jurisdiction and therefore, it doesn't count that i committed a violation in the first place. that is just a very strange argument. and i think we can leave it at thatment if you have questions, in particular the most serious question raised the 12-day notice received despite 20-day notice requirement. dph acknowled
on page 1, line 22 i believe -- and on page 2, line 9. they should read that this subsection -- this is a part of his new -- enforceable and is not, and it goes back. with that, if there are any questions i will be happy to answer them. we do have our city attorney here to help us if there are any questions. -- who has been working with us on this legislation. other than that we will open for public comment. other members of the public who wish to speak in item number one? >> (off mic) (off mic) ofm(off mic) (off mic) --- (off mic) >> chair: i think you want to speak on item number two. >> i don't mean to be fresh. i am being straightforward. i'm true to this. i'm here at city hall for 20 something years way before you all can hear. i don't know what you were doing 20 years ago, but i am doing the same thing i was doing 20 years ago, trying to find out what is going on at city hall. every department here needs to go over their contracts. for instance ttys signed contract that you don't know nothing about. there's a lot of things going on, i'm going to be here to let yo
attraction, a subsection. as more attractive to addressing people than addressing myself. it was not my objective desire, my own person. so i think that if i looked, the market inspire me. people different in it the streets or inspiring me. not what was fashion. maybe i was a finding something to were very inspiring. laurant. i like the ones that are different and have their own style. i like the ones that are different. they have style. i love them. so everyone that was different, i'd love it. i was not inspired by the jet set. at that time in 1960's, it was like very -- [unintelligible] for example, when i started to work, i am not all in the quatorze address. that is where some young girl -- among the young, i find more creativity, more interesting fashion in paris than in london. the sense of humor makes them to play more with the clothes and everything. in paris, i could see what was chic in what was not. one time i was working and was arriving at an industry job, and i was wearing boots. they looked at me and said, [unintelligible] as a reproach. i thought, ha ha, very funny. [lau
exempt those two spaces or that one space, i'm sorry, that one space from two subsections. the regulation that you be exempting it from the 10 foot doorway regulation because it would be 8 feet from the door, and you would exempt it from the 5 foot distance between street artist's regulation because it would be 4 feet from the next street artist. sounds like a lot of gibberish. did you follow me? okay. >> anything else? >> no, just to remind you that you do have the authority to exempt regulations, exempt spaces from the regulations. you'rev done it for at least 40 resolutions since 1983. * >> great, thank you very much. colleagues, any comments or questions? seeing none, given the additional presentation, we'll reopen public comment. is there any member of the public who wishes to comment on items 1, 2, and/or 3? seeing none, we'll close public comment. colleagues, is there a motion to forward items 1, 2, and 3 to the full board with positive recommendation? >> so moved. >> can we do that without objection? that will be the order. mr. clerk, can you please call item 5 out of order since
this legislation in particular, pretty specific to how if you look at the section 1110 subsection d, it doesn't really refer to a record of service to passengers in wheelchairs. i'm worried about limiting in terms of our ability to create a path for other companies that maybe aren't currently providing service to people in wheelchairs but would like to. >> yeah, i think it was a point well taken. i think it was mr. gruberg who made the comment on behalf of green cab. the intent was absolutely to look at the performance of the cab companies and to send the ability to provide the service to those who have a demonstrated performance in doing so. so, the legislation does specify that as a way to do that. i don't think it precludes the consideration of other factors. and it's something that i don't know that we had contemplated so much, but we can certainly explore how we would deal with the situation where a cab company that has no performance history might be able to access the program and maybe there's a way that we can do that. i think it does tie back to your previous comment on the need for
in support of this decision that you just made, are you issuing orders under subsection e or are you as required staff to prepare an order and you are authorized to sign that? >> yeah. you are right. >> i'm not sure if that all happened? >> we did in this. i think this order should be similar to the others in that we notified them of the violation and cease and desist of such contract in the future. any objection? >> no objection. >> the next item on the agenda are the minutes. >> mr. papal, that was part of the motion. you want a motion and a second on the order asking the staff to prepare a letter. you adopted a motion finding a violation, you want a motion directing the staff to issue a letter. >> okay. is there a motion to prepare a letter in accordance with what we've just described? >> so moved. >> second. >> public comment? >> david papal just that this letter should be aspect as possible because this is the first time we are going through this process and we want to be really sure that it's covering what the action that you took, some of the thinking, however you want this to
it is impossible to read. >> notice of proposed rulemaking subsection 13, a complete missing in action is unintelligible then they try to make your fans used less electricity. so we have a paradox but he wants to regulate us to death so with creativity with the small investments made over a long period of time and government dampens that for the economy. >> keep in mind if you don't succeed in a true free market even if you meet the needs and wants of other people. john: not the caricature of obama that he paints of us being greedy cackling over your money. >> coping people get more miserable. [laughter] >> but you don't get many of us somebody else wants it. of electricity people want more efficient fans, bob will provide them. the markets respond. 30 years ago as big as a shoebox it costs $3,995 if obama was involved it would be $9,995. [applause] john: capitalism brings us stuff but the president says it's not fair the ceo gets the money. >> they must have pleased a lot of people. just like baseball players or a movie actresses. >> raise the minimum wage. >> those are teenagers. i w
invalidate the individual mandate. five justices held that the subsection a, which provides that every covered person shall have minimum health insurance coverage, but that is an exercise of the commerce power, which is invalid -- join the other four conservatives on the point. in addition to the curbs on spending power, are two major points. now, for the rest of it, ted's facts could be better if you watch more than one news channel. >> msnbc is the only one we get in my home. >> the point is a trivial one but i'll respond. on abc this week with george stephanopoulos while the bill wag pending, isn't this a middle class tax increase the president said no. that is the sum total of the notion that obama went around denying this was a tax. i said the day before the decision came down, after hearing the argument on the tax injunction act, the chief justice roberts fully understood there was nothing remarkable about this law constitutionally. nothing remarkable at all. and i think you've done a wonderful job of covering over the fact that it's sort of embarrassing this was seen as the end
had to move across the country to take it, many of you would consider it, and a decent subsection what actually move to take the job. that is a choice a mexican worker with a high-school diploma faces every day -- three times higher wages in the u.s. the difference between all the bus and the mexican worker is that we could legally move across the west for a job while the mexican worker, unless he is closely related to a green card holder or citizen, has no ability to legally enter the u.s. is only other option it is authorized or a legal immigration. it is the lack of immigration laws that take account of reality that is the problem. another policy is the change enforcement of a punishment-only arm of the federal government to funnel. this is out immigration enforcement could play a vital role in any kind of reform. it needs to act as a funnel to guide peaceful and healthy guest workers into the lawful system, screening out and excluding criminals, suspected terrorists, and people with serious communicable diseases. what is the precedent for this? there is a long one, 1942-1962. in 19
is moderator of nbc's "meet the press." david, you're going to have a big, actually, subsection of guns in america on "meet the press" today. the president going to chicago. he supposedly going to talk about some economic stuff, but he had to deal with this gun issue, especially in his hometown. >> but that's a question of how guns get trafficked, how they get into the city, as well as which guns. the reality is, what does the president say? you pointed this out on state of the union. the white house is not confident they get a ban on assault weapons or magazines, as you well know. background checks looks better. look, wayne lapierre is getting ready for 2014 and the midterm elections and making this much more about government overreach than solving real problems. he says, where were they talking about school safety. why aren't we talking about hardening the targets. the president has been very skeptical about that and didn't say anything about it in his state of the union. >> you've got a packed "meet the press." you've got john mccain, denis mcdonough, the new white house chief of sta
that the subsection-a which provides that, every covered person shall have minimum health insurance coverage. that that is an exercise of the commerce power was invalid, chief justice roberts joined the other -- the four conservatives on that point to invalidate that. and that in addition to the curbs on the spending power are two major doctrinal and conservativizing doctrinal points. now, for the rest of it, ted's facts would be better if he watched more than one news channel. >> msnbc is the only one we get at my home. [laughter] >> the point is a trivial one and i'll respond in any event. on "abc's this week with george stephanopoulos" and he said you ran promising not to increase taxes on the middle class. isn't this a middle class tax increase? and the president said no, it's not a tax increase. that is the sum total of this notion that alabama went around denying it was a tax. -- that obama went around denying that it was a tax. and after hearing the argument on the tax injunction act justice roberts understood there was nothing remarkable about this law constitutionally and nothing re
-- [inaudible] it is a formal inquiry in terms of section 60 subsection b of criminal procedure act. >> [inaudible]. we have a document that is -- >> okay. give me five minutes, please. thank you. court will adjourn. bill: so clearly we can not see inside the courtroom. we only have the microphone at the magistrate who is gone for about an hour, 23, 24 minutes. you can clearly see he is not phoning in this decision. he is taking his time. he is going through a lot of south african law as we try to await whether or not pistorius goes home to await trial or whether or not he goes back to his jail cell there in south africa. martha: fascinating to listen to. sounds more like the entire trial is being laid out. we heard the pros and cons whether or not pistorius would be considered a flight risk. we heard the judge talk about whether or not he would duck and dive around the world. he laid out pistorius's assets which are considerable. he has a home in south africa. he has a home, according to this in italy as well. he has numerous cars. 1.65 million in annual salary. i believe that woul
to ensure compliance with the subsection. why is it interesting. the sheriff could come to the us on house and many people are concerned about that. why the story is so important because there is a liberal democrat in washington state who is against this even though he normally would not be. i think this is very i wanted to go pointed out. because oftentimes this discussion is right or left. now you have somebody who is actually looking at the law and having an open mind and saying maybe this isn't the right way to take this. >> home inspections with no warrants is very orwellian. that is why when they are talking about background checks, background checks may lead to a national registration, national registration leads to, i am from the sheriff's department. we want to see where consider guns are. >> i'm fairly certain it's unconstitutional. >>> the chief bill says it's probably unconstitutional. >> gretchen: they never read the bill and it's only 8 pages long. if you are going to have people who are going to talking about left and right, if you are going to have to people come out and sa
on the date of the budget commission to congress -- suggest submission to congress under subsection a for the succeeding year, proposed legislation to respond to such warning." in contrast to president bush bush -- this is in the united states code. when i say it's in law, it's in the united states code. and it requires that to occur and it makes ever so much sense, does it not? shouldn't we be worried about a program as important to americans as medicare, shouldn't we be honestly dealing with it? wouldn't congress like to know what the president's plan is to fix it? he doesn't get to dictate that but he gets an opportunity to lay out a vision to how to place it on a sound path. and why wouldn't he want to do that? what objection should he ever have to that? so he shall submit this, according to the law. president bush did, but by contrast, 2012, last year, marked the fourth consecutive year the obama administration failed to submit such a legislative proposal despite the clear and unambiguous legal obligation to do so. they say, well, we think we offered something with our patients
Search Results 0 to 41 of about 42 (some duplicates have been removed)